Smith v. United States

Background

Edward Smith, who was incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Thomson, Illinois, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence. He initially proceeded without a lawyer and later received appointed counsel. Smith also sought a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(1)(A)(i), commonly called compassionate release.

A jury convicted Smith of possessing a firearm and ammunition after a felony conviction and possessing crack cocaine with intent to distribute. The jury acquitted him of possessing a firearm in connection with a narcotics offense. The court sentenced him to concurrent 120-month terms on the two counts of conviction. The Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and sentence on direct appeal.

Section 2255 Claims

Smith argued that his trial and sentencing lawyers were ineffective. He claimed that counsel stipulated to an incorrect requirement concerning the connection between the firearm and interstate commerce. He also argued that counsel should have challenged the firearm-and-ammunition charge as improperly duplicative.

The court applied the two-part test for ineffective assistance of counsel: Smith had to show both that counsel’s performance was objectively unreasonable and that the alleged error probably affected the result. The court rejected the trial claim because the stipulation and jury instruction addressed the required interstate-commerce connection and were correct. It rejected the sentencing claim because Smith received only one conviction and one sentence for the firearm-and-ammunition offense.

Smith’s appointed counsel also sought to add a claim under Rehaif v. United States. Rehaif held that, in a prosecution for possessing a firearm as a prohibited person, the government must prove that the defendant knew both that he possessed the firearm and that he belonged to the prohibited category, such as people convicted of felonies. The court concluded that the proposed claim did not relate back to Smith’s original motion and would also fail on procedural and merits grounds.

On the merits, the court found that the failure to instruct the jury about knowledge of felony status did not warrant relief under the plain-error standard. Smith had received several prison sentences longer than one year, including a six-year sentence for a 2005 robbery conviction, and had stipulated at trial that he had a felony conviction. The court concluded that there could be no doubt that Smith knew he was a felon when he possessed the firearm and ammunition. It therefore denied Smith’s Section 2255 motion in its entirety.

Compassionate Release

Smith sought early release based on the COVID-19 pandemic, his asthma, and the conditions of confinement. The court concluded that the pandemic and Smith’s asthma, without evidence that the asthma was moderate or severe, did not by themselves constitute extraordinary and compelling reasons for release. The court also noted that Smith had declined a COVID-19 vaccine and that the facility had no reported COVID-19 cases among inmates or staff at the relevant time.

The court found more persuasive Smith’s argument that pandemic restrictions—including lockdowns and limits on programming and visitation—made his sentence more severe than the court could have anticipated when it imposed the original sentence. It then weighed the statutory sentencing factors, including Smith’s offense, criminal history, disciplinary violations, time already served, prison classes, family losses, and proposed reentry plan.

Balancing those considerations, the court granted Smith’s compassionate-release motion in part and reduced his concurrent prison terms on Counts One and Two from 120 months to 114 months. All other aspects of the sentence remained in effect. The court also declined to grant a certificate of appealability and directed that the civil case be closed.